Vault Dweller
Commissar, Red Star Studio
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 28,035
http://www.videogamer.com/features/arti ... 8-529.html
With Fallout 3 almost upon us, we thought that now might be a good time to compare how the game plays with the two original, Black Isle developed Fallout games from the late nineties. We've not played the full thing, of course - but having clocked up seven hours of exploration we've now seen enough to make some general comparisons.
In the original Fallout games everything was viewed from an isometric perspective, giving you a fairly generous view of your character and the surrounding environment. In standard play you'd be free to move around as you wish, but whenever a fight broke out the game would shift to a turn-based system. Depending on your character's Agility rating, you'd have a number of action points (AP) which could be spent on moving, firing weapons and accessing your inventory. Now, this setup may sound totally archaic to some modern gamers, but the fact is that it resulted in a high degree of tactical consideration....
As you probably know by now, Fallout 3 is primarily a first-person game; a third-person perspective is available, but we can't see many people using it for any length of time. While you can choose to play the whole game as a real-time shooter, you'll find it much easier to use the VATS system, which allows you to pause time and queue up a limited number of AP on targeted shots. There's certainly a degree of similarity to the old games here, with an emphasis on blinding or crippling your opponent - but you'll rarely have enough points to end a battle using VATS alone. We've found that in practice we tend to soften the enemy up with a few manually-aimed shots, before switching to VATS to make a few decisive hits. It's not exactly old-school Fallout, but it's not Doom either. It is, however, very satisfying. We were a bit worried that VATS might get old quite quickly, but we now believe the balance of its use is just about right.
After watching the, uh, unoptimized gameplay, it sure looks like the VATS is a built-in cheat mode, dialogues are pretty bad, and voice-acting is utter shit.We suspect the dialogue and tone will be the biggest bones of contention for hardcore Fallout fans. Pithy dialogue and description was a key part of the charm to the original games; there's a very distinct tone that was always going to be a big challenge for Bethesda to replicate. On a visual level, there's really no questioning the fact that the team has done an amazing job of recreating Interplay's post-nuclear-war world, but at times the dialogue is perhaps a little too theatrical for its own good. That's not to say it's badly executed - the standard of voice acting is very high, on the whole - but the actual tone of the script writing seems to vary quite a lot from area to area. An example: The ravaged settlers of Arefu seemed like a fairly miserable, desperate bunch - but on the way there we ran into a merchant named Crow, a colourful chap who seemed far too jolly for a man who risks his life by walking the wasteland for a living.
The point here is that Fallout veterans who come to this game expecting the same style of gritty patter are likely to get wound up rather quickly. For the rest of you, your reaction for the dialogue is going to be a matter of taste. To reiterate: there's no real problem with the way speech is delivered. It's more to do with the fact that what's actually being said can be a bit overly dramatic. Sometimes this approach works, at other times it's a tad hammy. If you've seen any video footage of Megaton's Mister Burke, you'll get the idea: as soon as he opens his gob, you know that he's a boo-hiss villain - and as boo-hiss villains go, he's really pretty well done. We've not heard much of Liam Neeson's contribution to the game, but we love the gravelly pomp of Malcolm McDowell's John Henry Eden - the leader of the fascistic Enclave. So far we've only heard his radio broadcasts, but we look forward to meeting him in the flesh (or pixels, whatever).